Hinduism on Yahweh and Abrahamic Religions

[Silverbackman]

Agnideva interesting info! I always did believe that heaven and hell did exsist, but not for eternity considering after so many years we might get too boared and stuff. It definatley makes sense to reincarnate.

So does any text describe how heaven and hell will be like? Will we be able to see our dead parents or dead loved ones when we die? I hope so.

BTW, perhaps I will just ask all my hinduism questions here.

Another question I gave which was not completly answered in the other thread, is the Brahmin like the pantheist view of God which is that "God is All" and "All is God". It is the view that everything is of an all-encompassing immanent God; or that the universe, or nature, and God are equivalent. More detailed definitions tend to emphasize the idea that natural law, existence and/or the universe (the sum total of all that is was and shall be) is represented or personified in the theological principle of 'God', like it says in this article;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheism



Or is the Brahman more like the panentheism, which believes that God maintains a transcendent character, and is viewed as both the creator and the original source of universal morality, like it says in this article;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panentheism



Or is the Brahman both Pantheistic and Panentheistic .

[Agnideva]

Hey Silver,


It makes a lot of sense to me also that heaven and hell are temporary and then you reincarnate into a new body. I think some of the purana texts do give descriptions of the heaven and hell, but I don’t know which ones and where exactly. I also hope that we get to see our dead relatives and friends … many Hindus expect to see their family members after death and some even say that their dead relatives/gurus guide them from heaven.


The question of pantheism and panentheism you ask is kinda tough to answer but here’s my view on it.


If pantheism is the belief that the sum of all (creation) is God or that nature=God, then the idea of Brahman is not pantheism. In the monist theory, Brahman is all that is manifest, but is also beyond manifestation. So Brahman has a transcendent aspect that is always there. Brahman is more than the sum of all of creation. So, this would be panentheism. Monist Hindu scholars today widely use the term panentheism to define their religion, but never pantheism.


Now a type of pantheism known as acosmic pantheism was put forth by the 8th century philosopher, Shankara. Acosmic pantheism is the belief that Brahman makes up the total reality and the world (and the soul’s individuality) is an appearance and ultimately unreal. Since in this philosophy, the only real existence is Brahman and nature is ultimately unreal, it is labeled pantheism. However, most modern teachers of monism even in Shankara’s lineage are really teaching panentheism.


If you want to give yourself a small headache looking up different types of pantheisms and panentheisms go to this website:
http://cyberspacei.com/jesusi/inligh.../pantheism.htm


Agnideva.

Originally Posted by Silverbackman

Agnideva interesting info! I always did believe that heaven and hell did exsist, but not for eternity considering after so many years we might get too boared and stuff. It definatley makes sense to reincarnate.

So does any text describe how heaven and hell will be like? Will we be able to see our dead parents or dead loved ones when we die? I hope so.

BTW, perhaps I will just ask all my hinduism questions here.

Another question I gave which was not completly answered in the other thread, is the Brahmin like the pantheist view of God which is that "God is All" and "All is God". It is the view that everything is of an all-encompassing immanent God; or that the universe, or nature, and God are equivalent. More detailed definitions tend to emphasize the idea that natural law, existence and/or the universe (the sum total of all that is was and shall be) is represented or personified in the theological principle of 'God', like it says in this article;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheism

Or is the Brahman more like the panentheism, which believes that God maintains a transcendent character, and is viewed as both the creator and the original source of universal morality, like it says in this article;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panentheism

Or is the Brahman both Pantheistic and Panentheistic .

[_Z_]

Reincarnation is fine but:

What happens when the universe comes to an end? Where would you get re-born to when the sun goes supa nova?

Life is not that great – I would rather not come back here!

Eternity could be like Elysium as the ancient Egyptians believed – an earthly paradise or continuance of life as we know it without the suffering [I know the arguments about the bad making the good so etc.].

Eternity could be whatever one wants it to be!

We wont necessarily see our dead relatives as some may be reincarnated!

‘Like attracts like’ thus a soul is connected to its relative human form & may only be born once?!



Is god and nature one? Even the vilest of existences?



Dharma: is there ‘a right way’ who says what it is & would god want everyone to act/be the same? If so, why create us as different?

Karma: do we really deserve all the sh*t we get? Is evil our fault – are we not born innocent? If someone dies a long horrible death from disease what must they have done that is so bad, esp. considering all the illness in the world, must be a lot of evil around yet I cannot see the equation as equal.



Z

[Silverbackman]

Originally Posted by Agnideva

Hey Silver,


It makes a lot of sense to me also that heaven and hell are temporary and then you reincarnate into a new body. I think some of the purana texts do give descriptions of the heaven and hell, but I don’t know which ones and where exactly. I also hope that we get to see our dead relatives and friends … many Hindus expect to see their family members after death and some even say that their dead relatives/gurus guide them from heaven.


The question of pantheism and panentheism you ask is kinda tough to answer but here’s my view on it.


If pantheism is the belief that the sum of all (creation) is God or that nature=God, then the idea of Brahman is not pantheism. In the monist theory, Brahman is all that is manifest, but is also beyond manifestation. So Brahman has a transcendent aspect that is always there. Brahman is more than the sum of all of creation. So, this would be panentheism. Monist Hindu scholars today widely use the term panentheism to define their religion, but never pantheism.


Now a type of pantheism known as acosmic pantheism was put forth by the 8th century philosopher, Shankara. Acosmic pantheism is the belief that Brahman makes up the total reality and the world (and the soul’s individuality) is an appearance and ultimately unreal. Since in this philosophy, the only real existence is Brahman and nature is ultimately unreal, it is labeled pantheism. However, most modern teachers of monism even in Shankara’s lineage are really teaching panentheism.


If you want to give yourself a small headache looking up different types of pantheisms and panentheisms go to this website:
http://cyberspacei.com/jesusi/inligh.../pantheism.htm


Agnideva.

In other words the Brahman cannot be considered pantheistic because he is not limited to nature. He is nature and everything above nature, right? So in a sense he is still pentheistic, but also panantheistic. He is everything natural AND supernatural, right?

[InChristAlways]

Jesus has no special place and official place in the Hindu God system. Most Indians don’t even know about him. To others he is a figure no more powerful than His Holiness Dalai Lama or other realized yogis that are abundant in India. The miracles that Jesus seem to have done are nothing special to Hindus or for the eastern population for that matter.

I have a question. Do the Hindus read or study the OT in the Bible at all or do they feel the OT/NT is corrupted and false?

The reason I ask is because of these 2 passages in Isaiah in the OT. Is this a "literal" heaven and earth or a change of "nature" resulting from mankind seeking the One True God and Creator. Any views on this? Thanks.
Thanks.

(Young) Isaiah 65:17 For, lo, I am creating new heavens, and a new earth, And the former things are not remembered, Nor do they ascend on the heart.

(Young) Isaiah 66:22 For, as the new heavens and the new earth that I am making, Are standing before Me, An affirmation of Jehovah! So remain doth your seed and your name.

(Young) Isaiah 28:16 Therefore, thus said the Lord Jehovah: `Lo, I am laying a foundation in Zion, A stone--a tried stone, a corner stone precious, a settled foundation, He who is believing doth not make haste. 17 And I have put judgment for a line, And righteousness for a plummet, And sweep away doth hail the refuge of lies,

[Samuel Linton Boot]

This is a translated extract, which refers to Jesus (Isa), from the Hindu Scritpture the BHAVISHYA MAHA PURANA the ninth of the eighteen major puranas, said to have been compiled in the year 115 AD.

"Shalivahan, who was a grandson of Bikrama Jit, took over the government. He vanquished the attacking hordes of Chinese, Parthians, Scythians and Bactrians. He drew a border between the Arians and the Mleacha (= non-Hindus), and ordered the latter to withdraw to the other side of India. One day, Shalivahan, the chief ot the Sakyas, went into the Himalayas. There, in the Land of the Hun (= Ladakh, a part of the Kushan empire), the powerful king saw a man sitting on a mountain, who seemed to promise auspiciousness. His skin was fair and he wore white garments.

"The king asked the holy man who he was. The other replied: 'I am called a son of God, born of a virgin, minister of the non-believers, relentless in search of the truth.' The king then asked him: 'What is your religion?' The other replied, 'O great king, I come from a foreign country, where there is no longer truth and where evil knows no bounds. In the land of the non-believers, I appeared as the Messiah. But the demon Ihamasi of the barbarians (dasyu) manifested herself in a terrible form; I was delivered unto her in the manner of the non-believers and ended in Ihamasi's realm.

"'O king, lend your ear to the religion that I brought unto the non-believers: after the purification of the essence and the impure body and after seeking refuge in the prayers of the Naigama, man will pray to the Eternal. Through justice, truth, meditation and unity of spirit, man will find his way to Isa in the center of light. God, as firm as the sun, will finally unite the spirit of all wandering beings in himself. Thus, O king, Ihamasi will be destroyed; and the blissful image if Isa, the giver of happiness, will remain forever in the heart; and I was called Isa-Masih.' After the king heard these words, he took the teacher of the non-believers and sent him to their pitiless land." (verses 16-33 of the third khanda of the Pratisarga parvan of the Bhavishya Mahapurana)

For more info. check: http://www.tombofjesus.com/core/majo...he-tomb-p3.htm

I think there is a similiarity between the names of God YHWH, Yahweh or Jewe and Shiva or Shive or Ishvara which suggests they are the same name.

The misconceptions regarding the nature of God which devotees have attached to the various Names, should not be allowed to detract from the sanctity of the Name, as all Names by which man knows God refer to the Parabrahman which is ultimately beyond name and form.

[Agnideva]

Namaste InChrist,

Originally Posted by InChristAlways

I have a question. Do the Hindus read or study the OT in the Bible at all or do they feel the OT/NT is corrupted and false?

Generally speaking, Hindus do not read either from the OT or NT. Most Hindus would say that they respect all religions as different paths leading eventually to the same goal. Now, in newer universalist sects of Hinduism that have arisen in the last 200 years or so, there is an attempt to reconcile the teachings of Krishna, Buddha, Jesus, etc. So, followers of the newer branches do read from various texts of different religions. In particular, they do read from the gospels because these branches believe that Jesus was a yogi and an Avatar-type person. Hindus do not have any generalized consensus on the validity/corruptedness of OT or NT, or scriptures of other religions for that matter.

Regards,
A.

[InChristAlways]

Originally Posted by InChristAlways I have a question. Do the Hindus read or study the OT in the Bible at all or do they feel the OT/NT is corrupted and false?

Originally Posted by Agnideva

Namaste InChrist,

Generally speaking, Hindus do not read either from the OT or NT. Most Hindus would say that they respect all religions as different paths leading eventually to the same goal. Now, in newer universalist sects of Hinduism that have arisen in the last 200 years or so, there is an attempt to reconcile the teachings of Krishna, Buddha, Jesus, etc. So, followers of the newer branches do read from various texts of different religions. In particular, they do read from the gospels because these branches believe that Jesus was a yogi and an Avatar-type person. Hindus do not have any generalized consensus on the validity/corruptedness of OT or NT, or scriptures of other religions for that matter.

Regards,
A.

I also feel the same way as repecting religions that teach Peace and Love above all else.

I just started reading the Bible about 3 yrs ago, [first book I had read in about 12 years] and one reason I haven't gotten into other religious writings is because I feel I haven't even "scratched the surface" of this Book yet I read through the NT first before the OT so I don't know if that made a difference or not on in the way I view it, but it made it a lot easier to understand it better I think.

Love and peace to you and yours.
Steve

Genesis 1:1 In [the] beginning of God's preparing the heavens and the earth-- 2 the earth hath existed waste and void, and darkness [is] on the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God fluttering on the face of the waters, 3 and God saith, `Let light be;' and light is.

Isaiah 65:17 For, lo, I am creating new heavens, and a new earth, And the former things are not remembered, Nor do they ascend on the heart.

Revelation 21:1 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth did pass away,

[Agnideva]

Namaste Samuel,

Yours was an interesting post indeed . I have come across the same excerpt in an ISKCON site. I would like to share some thoughts, if I may, regarding this particular excerpt and the Bhavishya Purana in general.

This is a translated extract, which refers to Jesus (Isa), from the Hindu Scritpture the BHAVISHYA MAHA PURANA the ninth of the eighteen major puranas, said to have been compiled in the year 115 AD.

Although there is no doubt that this is indeed found in the Bhavishya Purana, what is highly doubtful is the date of its composition. Historians believe that the Puranas were composed between the fourth and the sixteenth centuries CE, and that they were continuously edited, and new information was added into them. Although I cannot provide you with a reference, Bhavishya and Bhagavata Puranas are believed to be the latest ones. Puranas were written as compendiums of all the knowledge in mythic form, and also incorporated folk tales and other stories that were known to their authors. In addition to other subjects, Bhavishya Purana makes reference to Jesus (Isa), Muhammad (Mahamada), Buddha, and Kalki, an avatar to come at the end of Kaliyuga.

"Shalivahan, who was a grandson of Bikrama Jit, took over the government. He vanquished the attacking hordes of Chinese, Parthians, Scythians and Bactrians.
There, in the Land of the Hun (= Ladakh, a part of the Kushan empire), the powerful king saw a man sitting on a mountain, who seemed to promise auspiciousness. His skin was fair and he wore white garments.
"The king asked the holy man who he was. The other replied: 'I am called a son of God, born of a virgin, minister of the non-believers, relentless in search of the truth.' The king then asked him: 'What is your religion?' The other replied, 'O great king, I come from a foreign country, where there is no longer truth and where evil knows no bounds. In the land of the non-believers, I appeared as the Messiah. But the demon Ihamasi of the barbarians (dasyu) manifested herself in a terrible form; I was delivered unto her in the manner of the non-believers and ended in Ihamasi's realm.

King Shalivahana is popular figure in the Hindu world. Although not much is known about him personally, we do know that he ascended the throne of Ujjain in 78 CE. We know this because since the year 78 CE, his reignal year count known as Shalivahana Saka, has been continuously used in the Hindu calendar. The Shalivahana Saka is used throughout South Asia (India, Nepal, Sri Lanka, etc.) and also in Southeast Asia (Indonesia, Cambodia). If we assume that King Shalivahana actually ascended the throne in 78 CE and that dates of Jesus’ birth and crucifixion is roughly 6 BCE and 30 CE, respectively, then we may say that there‘s little chance that they actually met.

Thus, O king, Ihamasi will be destroyed; and the blissful image if Isa, the giver of happiness, will remain forever in the heart; and I was called Isa-Masih.'

I would like to point out here that Isa-al-Masih is the Qur’anic name of Jesus. Also note, as I mentioned above, that the Bhavishya Purana mentions Prophet Muhammed. One has to wonder, therefore, which came first, the Qur’an or Bhavishya Purana?

I personally believe that the Bhavishya Purana is a historically recent text (maybe 1500 CE) and not ancient as we are led to believe. The Bhavishya Purana is supposed to be prophetic in nature, hence the name Bhavishya (future). According to some traditions, all the Puranas were written by Sage Vyasa sometime around 3000 BCE. The reality, however, shows an entirely different picture. The Puranas have multiple authors and were written and edited over a period of more than a millennium. With regards to the Bhavishya Purana, an more apt name may be Bhuta (past) purana, as its contents are, more likely than not, a result of hindsight rather than foresight. The only real prophesy it has is that of the coming of Kalki at the end of the Kaliyuga. This is, of course, my personal opinion, and anyone is free to disagree .

OM Shanti,
A.

[Samuel Linton Boot]

Namaste Agnideva,
I am grateful to you for providing me with an alternative perspective on this information as my source presents it as irrefutable evidence

In contrast to the Gospels, the exact date of this book is clearly known. It was compiled by Sutta in the year 3191 of the Kaukikia Era. That corresponds to the year 115 AD.

I know your right about the Puranas having been added to throughout the ages infact this is encouraged in a passage in the Bhagavata Purana, but I believe their core does stretch back to Vedavyasa and for various reasons I believe in the accuracy of the quoted reference to Isa (Jesus) evan though I now accept it may have been added much later than 115 AD.

Originally Posted by Agnideva

If we assume that King Shalivahana actually ascended the throne in 78 CE and that dates of Jesus’ birth and crucifixion is roughly 6 BCE and 30 CE, respectively, then we may say that there‘s little chance that they actually met.

Unless they met after the cruxifiction, as Jesus is believed by some to have returned to India and to be buried in Srinigar Kashmir. Indeed the described encounter in the Purana, judging by what Jesus says, is supposed to have taken place after the end of his mission in Palestine.

I would like to point out here that Isa-al-Masih is the Qur’anic name of Jesus.

A person believed to be Jesus bearing the name Issa is also recorded as having visited Tibetan monasteries again this may be as the result of hindsight.


Sam.

[Agnideva]

Namaste Sam,

Thanks for the response.

“In contrast to the Gospels, the exact date of this book is clearly known. It was compiled by Sutta in the year 3191 of the Kaukikia Era. That corresponds to the year 115 AD.”

I think they mean to say the Laukika era. There are two ancient eras used in the Hindu calendar … the era of Kaliyuga which began in 3102 BCE, and the era of the seven sages (Sapta-Rishi) also known as the Laukika era which began in 3077 BCE. It may be interesting to note, particularly because you mention Srinagar in your message, that the Sapta-Rishi/Laukika era is used almost exclusively in Kashmir.

I know your right about the Puranas having been added to throughout the ages in fact this is encouraged in a passage in the Bhagavata Purana, but I believe their core does stretch back to Vedavyasa

The core of the Puranas may very well go back to Vedavyasa, as the core of the Mahabharata (the 8800 verse version called ‘Jaya’) certainly does. Historians are of the opinion that first version of the Mahabharata can be dated to before 400 BCE, and the earliest of the Puranas, such as Matsya Purana, can be dated roughly to 300 CE. Then again, as the Puranas themselves depict, they were dialogs between sages, and they may have been recorded down much later and continually added to over the ages.

for various reasons I believe in the accuracy of the quoted reference to Isa (Jesus) evan though I now accept it may have been added much later than 115 AD.
Jesus is believed by some to have returned to India and to be buried in Srinigar Kashmir. Indeed the described encounter in the Purana, judging by what Jesus says, is supposed to have taken place after the end of his mission in Palestine.

Perhaps Isa did visit! Please note that it was never my intention to refute the Jesus-in-India theory. Jesus may very well have visited the East and learned from Hindus and Buddhists before he began his ministry. I don’t think we will ever know for certain. It may just have to remain a mystery .

Regards,
A.